Notes from Reviewer 2: On the illusion of scrutiny
Dr Kate Thomas, University of Otago, New Zealand
Kate Thomas has been recognised as an exceptional referee for two of the Physiological Society journals, The Journal of Physiology and Experimental Physiology. In 2025, Kate was shortlisted among a select group who distinguished themselves through the quality, volume and timeliness of their reviews. In this article, she shares her motivations for reviewing and her insights of the process, discussing its values and flaws.
Author Bio
Kate’s research focusses on understanding cardiovascular and cerebrovascular responses to exercise and environmental stressors, such as heat, cold and hypoxia, and then applying these stressors for health benefits; for example, using exercise prescription and heat therapy. Kate’s goals are to identify and develop effective, non-pharmaceutical, easy-to-implement lifestyle interventions to prevent or reduce the impact of chronic health conditions, such as dementia, osteoarthritis and cardiovascular disease.
How thoughtful peer review adds value
We are all familiar with Reviewer 2: the one who demands more control, more analysis, more citations – sometimes reasonably, often not. We joke about them because it’s a familiar experience, and because the joke contains truth. Reviewer 2 is the archetype of ruthless scrutiny, challenge and high standards, and I generally look forward to reading what they have to say. However, this mythical persona is sometimes associated with harshness and excessive criticism; their comments can feel like hurdles to navigate rather than opportunities to learn from. In contrast, the overzealous naïve critic fixates on trivialities while missing the point. An exhaustive evaluation can look rigorous, but the performance of rigour doesn’t guarantee rigour itself.
The fact that these stereotypes exist reflects the fundamental flaws in peer review – inconsistency, subjectivity, and bias – and highlights the system is less robust than we give it credit for. This is not a critique of individuals who participate in peer review, but of a systemic issue; we place too high a value on the process. The big sticker we place on publications proclaiming “inspected by a fancy journal” is meant to catch bad research, but the process often falls short.
The cost of peer review in both time and money is substantial. One source estimates that collectively, researchers spend 15,000 years reviewing papers every year1, and universities spend millions on access to peer-reviewed journals, even though none of the money goes to authors or reviewers, and most research is publicly funded. Flawed as it is, I continue to peer review. I am motivated by several reasons; primarily, a desire to maintain and improve the quality of the work in our field.
I read The Journal of Physiology and Experimental Physiology most often, because they consistently publish work I find interesting and relevant to my own. I also choose to publish in these journals and therefore based on reciprocity, I believe it’s part of our scholarly citizenship to participate in peer review. Other motivators are intellectual curiosity – to be among the first to read new work – and the opportunity to develop my own writing and reviewing skills.
Journals rely on goodwill and the availability of expertise, and as a community, we deliver. While unrealistic time constraints often influence my willingness to accept a review request, the more important question I ask myself is: “Can I add value in doing this review?”. Through writing and receiving reviews, I have found that a good review identifies the major issues – those that affect validity – rather than minor ones. Being respectful and constructive goes a long way, illuminating why an issue matters. I am also comfortable acknowledging my own uncertainties, and I appreciate the same from reviewers, remembering a review represents only one perspective. Overly critical reviews can result in rejection of the paper rather than improvement, allowing flawed work to drift to another journal that may not evaluate it as carefully.
The optimist in me believes that careful review can be helpful, if the feedback is genuinely taken up. We all want to uphold a basic level of scientific rigour. The opportunity to read the peer review history in The Journal of Physiology gives some faith in the process – the provision of such transparency should be a normal expectation. Peer review remains central to how we currently share research – like it or not. Its most important role is to improve conversation, as part of an ongoing process. The inclusion of open peer reviews and post-publication discussion (e.g., letters to the Editor) is crucial for continued evaluation.
Finally, we must recognise its limitations and use it for refinement, not validation. Peer review is not a reliable filter for quality, nor should it be conflated with a sense of credibility. Because peer review is an imperfect tool, this places more responsibility on the reviewers to do it carefully. As reviewers and readers, it demands from us a commitment to thoughtful scrutiny, integrity and ongoing dialogue.
1 Aczel, B., Szaszi, B. & Holcombe, A.O. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev 6, 14 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2